Professors often insist that in the name of being
“objective” one has to write a paper that offers “both” sides of the issue. It
is generally accepted today that to be “objective” about any political topic,
one must give “both sides” a fair shot. In fact, this is a subjectivist stance.

Subjectivism by definition is the belief that truth is determined
by human consciousness. It is the belief that right or wrong is judged solely
by what people think. Objectivism on the other hand is the belief that truth is
determined by reality. It is the belief that absolute truth is outside of
humans (though humans must use their mind to come to that truth) and grounded
in reality. Objectivists believe that what that truth is a law of reality, like
the laws of physics, and is independent of what humans merely think.

Given that the definition of “objectivism” means that truth
is determined by reality, there is a corollary to this statement. The corollary
is that there is only one truth that is correct. The principles of reality
remain constant. They are uniform throughout the universe. Thus, if 5 different
objective scientists set out to study gravity, they are all going to conclude
the same thing. They all are going to have the same single answer.

On the other hand, the definition of “subjectivism” is
whatever a human thinks is correct is then correct. A subjectivist grounds
truth in nothing more than what a scientist thinks. Thus, if 5 different
subjective scientists went out to study gravity, it could easily happen that
they come up with 5 different answers.

It should be heavily noted that objectivists will come up
with one answer; subjectivists are likely to come up with many.

So when a student were writing a paper on any given thing,
if one were to go about it objectively, and ground conclusions in reality (the
definition of objectivism), one would only going to come up with one valid
answer.

Not only do college professors want students to come up with
more than one answer, they want both those answers to contradict themselves.
One has to argue for black, and then one have to turn around and argue for
white. This is subjectivism.

When a scientist writes a thesis on a topic, do they write a
“fair and balanced” lab report? Are they forced to pick both sides, that
evolution is both true and not true, and defend both stances? No, they
absolutely do not. Yet, that is exactly what passes for being “objective”
today.

In this day where famous news channels think in order to be
objective one needs to be “fair and balanced,” it is difficult to convince
people of what I am saying. I believe if one were to be objective about
anything, from science to philosophy, they are only going to come up with one
correct answer and all rational people who investigate the situation will come
up with the same answer.

This is definitely a hard battle to win as people see things
like morality, philosophy, and politics as having no one single correct answer.
But the fact is they do. And, some people do understand this. In politics for
example, many people realize that the free market cannot be cheated. This is an
absolute objective truth about politics that, when ignored, produces
undesirable consequences. There doesn’t need to be two sides of the debate
argued, and two sides given equal credence. Socialism has undeniably been
proven wrong and capitalism right. If one were to submit that just because a
socialist thinks their stance is good, it is good,
they are then becoming a subjectivist. Being objective does not mean giving
equal merit to “both” sides of any issue (as if there are only two), it means
coming to a correct, logically consistent, reality-bound single answer.